February 13, 2018

The speaker is Omarosa (talking to her "Big Brother" housemates), and the "he" is Mike Pence.

The full quote is: "As bad as you think Trump is, you would be worried about Pence... We would be begging for days of Trump back if Pence became President. He’s extreme. I’m Christian, I love Jesus, but he thinks Jesus tells him to say things that are not —— and like, Jesus ain't sayin' that. Scary."

The video, with a truncated transcription, appears at Entertainment Weekly. EW ends at "he thinks Jesus tells him to say things," which made me write the post title — which I will leave in its original form — and I was going to do a poll. But the left-off "things that are not —— and like, Jesus ain't sayin' that" completely changes the meaning from a religious perspective, as I see it. And the poll I had wanted to do is not appropriate.

In the truncated form, Omarosa seems to be mocking all the people who believe that Jesus speaks to them. What kind of person claims to be a Christian but doesn't even tolerate the belief that some Christians have that. in some way, Jesus is communicating with them and guiding them toward saying the right thing? But in the completed quote, you can see that her problem with Pence is that the things he is saying, which he attributes to Jesus, are not what Jesus would say. That is, Pence is wrong in believing that Jesus is speaking to him because Pence conveys messages purportedly from Jesus that are — in Omarosa's opinion — obviously not things Jesus would say.

Her mockery comes in the line EW left off: "Jesus ain't sayin' that." I'd say that EW doesn't understand Omarosa's religious perspective and has hurt Omarosa by portraying her doing something that maybe the people at EW do: mocking the common religious belief that prayer is a 2-way communication. She's not denying that belief. She's just saying what Pence understands as the message from Jesus can't be the real message, because it's not the Christian message.

I don't know what specific words Omarosa feels she knows can't be from Jesus, and really I don't know whether the entire riff is reality-show bullshit. She's playing a game, so she has a motive to con the other contestants, and she has other plans for the future — notably a book to sell. She's thinking about potential audiences. Pence — whatever he may have said on this subject — may also have been lying, exaggerating, taking poetic license, or simplifying — conning the contestants in the game of winning the next election.

But Omarosa's main point — and it's a good point whatever you think of Omarosa — is that a person who believes he didn't think up his own ideas but had them handed to him by God is dangerous. He's impervious to reason and evidence and advice from experts and pleas for mercy and his own urges toward empathy and self-preservation.

118 comments:

The brain guys tell us that none of us are thinking up our own ideas and all of us are impervious to reason. What is unique about Christians of Pence's suasion is that they put on a name on this way the brain works.

Buddhists also treat thought as outside of our thinking. One construct that comes up is the idea that the brain secretes thoughts the way other organs secrete bile, or saliva. One shouldn't get too distracted by an organ.

"a person who believes he didn't think up his own ideas but had them handed to him by God is dangerous"So is a person who believes his ideas are supported by "a consensus of scientists" or "the arc of history" or the "demands of justice" or "the revolution" or whatever.But only if he has power to implement those ideas. So let's not undermine limitations on power.

The concern about the fanatic that believes he is acting under divine direction is similar to the warning that those who sincerely wish to control us for "our good" are worse tyrants than those who are corrupt. They corrupt will eventually have their appetites satisfied. The moral do-gooders know no bounds.

To say that God is "telling you" to say something doesn't mean it's the 100% Truth Forever. If God is a storyteller, then it's a line that advances a divine storyline, which as stories tend to be would have twists and turns, ironies, insights, blocks and terminations. For God to tell someone to say something could be a message from a character whose trajectory is over. God could have the directed human say: "I'm leaving the story now."

...a person who believes he didn't think up his own ideas but had them handed to him by God is dangerous.

So are 99.99% of the people who believe that they reasoned their way into their ideas.

He's impervious to reason and evidence and advice from experts and pleas for mercy and his own urges toward empathy and self-preservation.

So are 99.99% of the people who believe that they reasoned their way into their ideas.

The vast majority of people are dangerous if you give them large amounts of power. That's why we have federalism. That's why we have checks and balances. That's why we have a First Amendment. That's why we have a Second Amendment. That's why we can't give activists judges the power to interpret the Constitution to mean whatever-the-fuck they please.

And that is why, no matter how bad the current Republican President, Vice President, Congressmen and Senators, we cannot afford to vote for any Democrat.

"a person who believes he didn't think up his own ideas but had them handed to him by God is dangerous. He's impervious to reason and evidence and advice from experts and pleas for mercy and his own urges toward empathy and self-preservation."

That depends on what they believe God handed them. In the case of Christianity, that includes the use of reason, mercy, and empathy. In other religions, not so much. Explaining that got Ratzinger in PC trouble at Regensburg.

It is true that religious fanaticism can be dangerous. But it is an empirical question whether the handed down by God part makes imperviousness etc. more dangerous than its secular forms. The 100M Communist victims offer a sizable data point.

But Omarosa's main point — and it's a good point whatever you think of Omarosa — is that a person who believes he didn't think up his own ideas but had them handed to him by God is dangerous. He's impervious to reason and evidence and advice from experts and pleas for mercy and his own urges toward empathy and self-preservation.

In between is the person who "runs his ideas by the guy upstairs," asking in effect "what would Jesus would do?"

Althouse: "He's impervious to reason and evidence and advice from experts and pleas for mercy and his own urges toward empathy and self-preservation."

Maybe Sally Yates is one of those lawyers who believes she has one of those hotlines to the ultimate truth, whether it's her duty to represent her client (e.g., the US government) or some imagined Logan Act kompromat?

Yates then explained to McGahn her theory that Flynn might be vulnerable to blackmail. The idea was that Flynn had discussed sanctions with Kislyak, which of course the Russians knew. And then if Flynn lied to Pence, and Pence made a public statement based on what Flynn had told him, then the Russians might be able to blackmail Flynn because they, the Russians, knew Flynn had not told the vice president the truth.

It was a pretty far-fetched notion, but, along with the never-successfully-prosecuted Logan Act, it was apparently the basis upon which the FBI went inside the White House to do an unannounced interview of a key member of the new administration.

In their discussion, McGahn asked Yates: Even if one White House official lied to another, what's that to the Justice Department? "It was a whole lot more than one White House official lying to another," Yates testified. "First of all, it was the vice president of the United States and the vice president had then gone out and provided that information to the American people who had then been misled and the Russians knew all of this, making Mike Flynn compromised now."

Yates went to see McGahn twice, on Jan. 26 and Jan. 27. On Feb. 13, Flynn resigned. That same day, the Washington Post reported that the Justice Department had pursued Flynn on the grounds of a potential Logan Act violation.

"Yates, then the deputy attorney general, considered Flynn's comments in the intercepted call to be 'highly significant' and 'potentially illegal,' according to an official familiar with her thinking," the Post reported. "Yates and other intelligence officials suspected that Flynn could be in violation of an obscure U.S. statute known as the Logan Act, which bars U.S. citizens from interfering in diplomatic disputes with another country."

...So Comey went to Capitol Hill in March to brief lawmakers privately. That is when he told them that the FBI agents who interviewed Flynn did not believe Flynn had lied, or that any inaccuracies in Flynn's answers were intentional. And that is when some lawmakers got the impression that Flynn would not be charged with any crime pertaining to the Jan. 24 interview.

"Two sisters in East Bridgewater were arrested last month after they tied down and burned a 5-year-old girl, permanently disfiguring her, in a "voodoo ritual" meant to rid her of a demon, authorities say."

"he thinks Jesus tells him to say things that are not —— "--Oh..guess we'll just HAVE to wait for the book to fill in the blanks.Jesus ain't sayin' that could be a cool bumper sticker.It's refreshing that she's not calling Pence a racist...yet.

So, what exactly has Pence said that Jesus says that Omarosa objects to?

That's what I hate about what passes for "journalism" nowadays. The focus is on disagreement as a thing in and of itself, on conflict for conflict's sake, and not on the subject of the disagreement, on what the conflict is about. Idjits.

But Omarosa's main point — and it's a good point whatever you think of Omarosa — is that a person who believes he didn't think up his own ideas but had them handed to him by God is dangerous. He's impervious to reason and evidence and advice from experts and pleas for mercy and his own urges toward empathy and self-preservation.

Someone who doesn't believe in god should still recognize a reference to god speaking reflects the person's effort to consider their decision according to their religious framework. The "speech" is recognizing how the various sermons (principles) inspired by divinity teach them to respond to the current adversity.

There is nothing dangerous about this. In particular this reasoning is no more fallible than people who cite "science" for every cockamamie plan as if the existence of a fact proves which path would be most successful in ameliorating it. Omarosa's assertion is driven and applauded by bigots who misinterpret everything in order to justify their own extremism, condescension, and hatred.

But this comment begins, since it is such a common feature of contemporary writing style, in spite - or perhaps because - of it being nearly always superfluous, even while it does not by itself add the element of confusion as do other au courant techniques such as jamming widely separated concepts into a lengthy sentence, confoundingly separating logically linked parts such as subject-verb, verb-object, or pronoun-antecedent, with a conjunction.

Do we even know if Omarosa has spent time with Pence? Sounds to me she's been hanging out with the Adam Rippon crowd and just saying what is expected. Omarosa has been fired multiple times by Trump, but she's still loyal. Amazing.

It would be nice if she could have given us an example of the things she claims Pence thinks Jesus tells him to say... Then we could decide for ourselves if his views are extreme, or if its purely a difference in theological interpretation.

Well, let's just throw all the Christians to the lions, shall we? The onus is not upon Christians or Jews to defend their history or their faith. And the Age of Reason, exemplified by the French Revolution, showed how unreasonable atheism can be.

The difference being that someone's personal communications with God can never be externally verified, nor questioned. We then are no longer relying on faith in God, but faith in a person.

2/13/18, 7:40 AM

----------------

Um... actually the bible is quite clear... we are to test everything against the word of God, and if it doesn't line up with what is said, then we know the speaker to be false...

The trick is in knowing what is the correct Biblical interpretation. There are a lot of "ignorant" Christians who basically know a bunch of easy-to-digest platitudes that they can thing hang a very simplistic faith and "rules for living the 'right' way"... But there are also a lot of highly 'educated' Christians who spend all their time focused on the mechanics, but miss the underlying essence of what God is trying to say...

Unfortunately, the modern english translation does not do the original source justice. You really need to have a strong understanding of the underlying languages (Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek), as well as the cultural and historical context of what life was like in those places and times, including idioms and figures of speech.

The Bible has so many layers to it, and all of them are in complete harmony (minus a couple of transcription errors that have slipped in over the millennia).

The idea that Christians are "impervious to reason" is directly contrary my own experience. It's ideologues or fanatics generally, political more often than religious in my experience, that are dangerous. To be fair to Pence, he has a history in politics that does not include any extraordinary behavior. No secret email servers, no false documents sent to courts to obtain warrants to surveil enemies, no weaponizing of state tax auditors to go after political opponents. The charge has no basis in fact as far as I can tell.

"Why are Christians considered 'scary', while Islamic Supremacists who slice off heads and burn people alive in cages are, what exactly?"

Because Christians in our government who believe Jesus tells them things might try (and possibly succeed) in turning our country into a theocracy. That's more scary than ISIS because ISIS poses small or no threat this country.

And Christians aren't really considered scary, only those fanatics who believe Jesus is telling them things pertaining to running the country, (or those fakes who pretend he does).

For the record I believe that God regularly guides my steps although not audibly with special effects, no Morgan Freeman. I think is entirely ordinary in the life of the faithful to be guided. To be clear many of the events I read as guidance would be interpreted as natural insights or coincidences by agnostics. In Catholic teaching there are rules for discerning whether these insights are of God or not: ie testing the spirits as Paul noted. The simplest rule is that if your mystical experience or insight leads to pride it's suspect.

"He previously was the 50th Governor of Indiana from 2013 to 2017 and a member of the United States House of Representatives from 2001 to 2013. Born and raised in Columbus, Indiana..." — Wikipedia

Gosh, if only we had, say, 16 years of public service and anyone from the town he grew up in to give us some further clues.

Pence's religious history, as a self-described "evangelical Catholic" who in practice attends an evangelical megachurch, is extremely well-known, at least to Hoosiers. Both mainline Catholics and Protestants will raise an eyebrow at any suggestion that Jesus literally speaks to him, or anyone else. But all of these denominations use terminology like "Jesus speaks to us" or "Jesus spoke to me" to refer to inspiration, whether from scripture, prayer, a particularly sharp reaction to a particular sermon, or just a conversation with a friend (who may or may not even be Christian—I got such a kick out of Morpheus' ship in "The Matrix" being "The Nebuchadnezzar," the king of Babylon, described in the Bible as "God's servant" in spite of not being a Jew).

So Dr. Althouse is right, as are other critics of the reporting: Omarosa is applying a common Biblical standard to (her understanding of) what Pence has said: it's inconsistent with her understanding of Jesus' teaching and aims. How seriously we should take either "Pence believe Jesus literally talks to him" or Omarosa's judgment of Jesus' teaching and aims would require information we aren't given. One reason for that tends to be that all reporting on Christian belief that's actually acted on (unless it's from "Catholic" politicians violating their faith and, e.g. supporting abortion) tends to at least tacitly assume that such action is unhinged or, at best, counter to the interests of Americans as a body politic. I'm remembering things like characterizing Lutheran Michele Bachmann as some kind of fundamentalist nut, when the strangest thing about her is that there's only one "l" in "Michele" and two "n's" in "Bachmann."

By the way, if you want solid political reporting from a thoroughly mainline practicing Christian writers, let me highly recommend Mollie Hemingway and D.C. McAllister.

Cook Your political freedom is directly from Christ whether you know it or not. It was Christ who said "render unto Caesar .."" God Himself is the author of freedom and does not seek to impose His will through force (although that is Islamic doctrine). Granted historically there are those who improperly imposed conversion on others 500 years ago. But please be serious: read a Pew report or two. America and the West generally has been loosing it's faith for years. The numbers of weekly attending Christians has steadily fallen. There is little threat of theocracy; that's ridiculous hyperbole. Christians have never been socially weaker in the US as evidenced by the lack of outcry at the "Little sisters of the Poor" case or many many other anti-christian efforts by the ACLU and other lefty would be tyrants. Get real.

The list is long but I just one piece from an expert will do:"... even though this is my specialty. The disaster for America and the world has so many aspects that the economic ramifications are way down my list of things to fear.Still, I guess people want an answer: If the question is when markets will recover, a first-pass answer is never. Under any circumstances, putting an irresponsible, ignorant man ..."Our host is an expert's expert although lacking the credentials of the unnamed soul quoted here. But "dangerous"?The relationship between God and man is way above my pay grade. But I will say if you don't know who I am quoting above, my advice to you is is to start praying to Jesus and don't stop.

@ Cookie "Because Christians in our government who believe Jesus tells them things might try (and possibly succeed) in turning our country into a theocracy. That's more scary than ISIS because ISIS poses small or no threat this country.

LOL! That is the perfect hivemind Hollywood answer. A Christian theocracy is scary, and imminent! Islamic theocracy, which is the stated goal of Islamic Supremacists, is not.

Cookie- Are you bothered and scared of Jews and Democrat Christians? Were you frightened that the evil Bush II was going to usher in theocracy!?!? I know I was.

My comments had nothing to do with Jesus and everything to do with fanatics and anti-Christs who purport to act in his name. (Fanatics = zealots who ascribe holy command or inspiration for their own passions; anti-Christs = fakes who pretend to be something they're not to fool others).

Blogger Robert Cook said..."Why are Christians considered 'scary', while Islamic Supremacists who slice off heads and burn people alive in cages are, what exactly?"

Because Christians in our government who believe Jesus tells them things might try (and possibly succeed) in turning our country into a theocracy.

We have checks and balances in place to prevent anyone from succeeding. We have these two other branches of government to prevent an imperial presidency. The possibility of success in creating a theocracy is remote. What is far less remote is turning our country into a secular oligarchy controlled by leftists protected by the bureaucratic institutions within government.

Big Brother is a game show right? You form alliances and kick people out of the house or something. I have to say I haven't watched it.

Given that, Omarosa must be winning this game show. Why do I know that? In 2 short weeks the only person that I've heard talked about on the show is her. If I'm hearing about it and I don't watch the show, then everybody is talking about it.

She's telling the other contestants (i.e. voters) what they want to hear. She must come into the show with horrible negatives. I mean she worked for Trump. She must be evil. I wonder what a pre-show poll of the other contestants would have said as to who would have gotten kicked out first. I'm sure she would have been high on the list. She has name recognition. Negative name recognition.

I notice in the clips of her that have been shown she's always hinting at more to the story. That she is privy to some private information that can't be revealed yet, but will be soon. It's all very implicit. If you only had been there and seen the things she has seen. Keep her in the house and she will talk more.

Hillary voters must be tuning into the show hoping that she will reveal more that justify their pre-conceived notions. Or I'm biased and she really feels this way and is just for the first time being able to express it publicly and feels that on national tv is the best place to do a therapy session.

You are right to be concerned about those folks, but to be real in modern America they are typically socialists selling a distorted Gospel where God who loves you is replaced by a State that does not. Poor trade IMO

This is why I don't watch Television much anymore: the open contempt of my politics, culture and faith.

Ergo, they don't get my money and they lose all influence in changing my mind.

My kids don't watch much television either.

I vaguely recall this woman was in some Apprentice program? We're a few decades past her '15 minutes' aren't we? But everything is Trump these days, so OF COURSE, she is brought out of the crypt to make commentary.

Why do you, and Omarosa, care from whence Pence gets his inspiration? If we hold people accountable for what they say and do, and don't excuse bad words and behavior based on the source of their inspiration, then what does it matter if Pence says Jesus speaks to and guides him? Flip Wilson's "The Devil made me do it" addressed this faux conundrum through comedy 50 years or so ago.

Throughout the Bible and Christian history, God repeatedly communicates to people in various and sundry ways. Voice from clouds, burning Bush, Michael the archangel, a blinding (temporarily) light, etc. What modern Christian doctrine says about revelations or prophecy is that the message must be tested against the written Wird of God and must be consistent with God’s previous messages (such as to Saul or Paul) and Jesus’s ministry. If the messsge one “receives from God” (or His earthly messengers Jesus and the Holy Spirit) is in conflict with Jesus’s teaching then one prays and meditates on it. One does not ACT on such revelations unless and until they perfectly align with the ministry of Jesus.

The episode with Legion and the pigs illustrates one of the powers of the Holy Spirit (dwelling within Jesus) to caste our evil spirits. Don’t try this st home. Note what the bad spirits say to the non-Christian guy who tries to invoke Jesus’s name to a spirit unsuccessfully: “Who are you?”

As a genuine lifelong Republican I’ve had to deal with my share of “Brother, have you been saved through the love of our savior Jesus Christ?” Republicans. They can be annoying, but in my experience they are more open to reason than, for instance those who worship — are true believers in — anthropogenic global warming. People who believe in the literal truth of the Holy Bible (ah, which literal truth — the Bible is all too often self-contradictory) are less of a threat to people than folks who believe in the literal truth of “Das Kapital.”

Given that Omarosa is a documented liar and cheat and fool and attention whore, I will take her comments about Pence or anyone else with a grain — make it it a shaker full — of salt.

When an athlete claims his victory came from his faith, I believe him. It's not the only way to win in sports, but it's one way. Isn't it true that this faith acclaiming by athletes is much more common with men? I can't remember a woman claiming that after victory. I'm sure it happens, but I'm drawing a blank.

@Althouse, that was an eloquent final paragraph, but perhaps you might ask yourself whether your feelings about religious people are conditioned by living so long in ultra-liberal Madison. I find liberals, even liberal Republicans, to be exceptionally intolerant of religious Christians. To be blunt about it, you have immersed yourself in a society that has been working to brainwash you for decades.

I watched Omarosa on the Apprentice. She is a lying, back stabbing conniver. Personable, though.Far as the Jesus told me thing, if you are taking in all info available in order to make a decision, as a believer, you may suppose Jesus told you to make that decision. As a non believer, you believe you came to the decision through reason. Decision is the same, sometimes Jesus gets the credit.

Lots of religious bigotry in this thread, starting with Omarosa herself. If Omarosa has beef with a particular thing Pence believes that he’s imposing on anyone else, she can inform us of that and we can then have something to judge. Otherwise, all we have is her seeming bigotry toward someone else’s belief system.

Sure, I agree with the good doctor that people who are impervious to reason can be dangerous, but only when that unreason is imposed on others. Omarosa provides no evidence that this is true of Pence. And the idea that religious people are especially special in this way... well, even a brief glance at our recent century should disabuse us of this notion.

So, feel free to judge Pence harshly when he actually tries to impose on others based on his faith while proving impervious to reason. Until then, I’ll just chalk all the fear mongering and “fake Christian” talk up to to one of the few types of bigotry that still seem to be widely embraced by right-thinking people everywhere: bigotry against the differently pious, or even just believers in general.

And just to properly virtue signal, I say this is as agnostic on matters of faith. I’ve found, however, that the impious and non-religious can be moral busybodies just as easily as the religious, and just as impervious to reason. Ultimately, the quality that governs is not piety, but humility. Does Omarosa offer any evidence that Pence lacks humility? Indeed, does she demonstrate any herself?

First, everyone has their own way of trying to rise above subjectivity in their opinions. Those in religious cultures use the language familiar to their audience.

Two, it's bad theology to say that Jesus speaks to us.

Three, it's very Christian theology (like it or not) to say that the Holy Spirit speaks to us, and the Spirit gives us "the mind of Christ" so that while it's not precise, it's within bounds, to say that Jesus speaks to us.

Four, Quakers and Methodists had some of the strongest doctrine on the work of the Holy Spirit in early American history, and rather than theocracy, that led them to very active abolitionist and social reform efforts. When the Methodist became locked into pro-slavery views, they splintered into the holiness churches, who saw the Spirit leading them to fight against hierarchical control as well as slavery.

When an athlete claims his victory came from his faith, I believe him. It's not the only way to win in sports, but it's one way. Isn't it true that this faith acclaiming by athletes is much more common with men?

If you want to see full-flavor Omarosa, go online and watch the Apprentice season in which she and Piers Morgan go at it--and she thinks Pence is scary?

I never watched the Apprentice until after Trump was elected, and I was trying to find out who Omarosa was/is. Let's just say that watching that Apprentice gave me new sympathy for Piers Morgan. Trump couldn't fire her fast enough, then or this time.

As to where ideas come from--$64 million question of philosophy. By no means obvious that our ideas come from ourselves.... I mean, we don't even know what ideas are....

I’ve never heard Mike Pence make the claims that others ascribe to him. I’ve never heard any believer call themselves a super-Christian. Pence seems to live his life as an example, upon which others comment larding up their statements with their own prejudices and preconceived biases against Christianity. This episode reveals much more about the limits of Omarosa’s faith than anything about Pence. “Be accepting of others” should get as much popular play as the verses about loving thy neighbor. They are a matched set, not isolated ideas. Ironically it is Omarosa declaring “I’m a Christian but” (perhaps missing a final T in that final word?) that does more damage to the Church than anything I’ve heard attributed to Pence.

Forging God's name under your own ideas is what the Third Commandment - about not taking the Lord's name in vain - is really about (not swearing, only tangentially about promises). By extension, doing, or causing other people to do evil things because of a false belief that God is commanding it is included. My interpretation is that this is the unforgivable sin Jesus talks about in the NT. The commandment in Exodus does include the statement that God won't forgive (cleanse) that sort of thing.

However, I have never read anything by or about Pence that comes close to that. Maybe I have missed something. I find it far more frequently among his opponents, who tread into dangerous waters about what Jesus is "really" about.

World view is everything. Most of the 7.6 billion people on this planet hold to some form of a spiritualist world view. Atheist that have been convinced by their intellect are rarer even in western and in Marxist societies.

Historically, there is nothing more dangerous than the twilight faith, interpreted by mortal gods, and a Pro-Choice, selective, opportunistic, and congruent religion. A twilight faith that conflates logical domains, and a Pro-Choice religion that denies individual dignity and intrinsic value, selectively.

Howard, by "rightwing" you mean "pro-freedom," right? (Exactly the opposite of its original meaning, I know; but never mind for not). I was listening to a radio interview with the current King of Late Night Agitprop, Stephen Colbert, and he was talking about his Catholicism when the interviewer asked him what he thought about the current pope. He said he was a big fan, and never cared for Pope John Paul II. Judging by his explanation, JPII was too pro-freedom for a "liberal" State-f*cker Colbert. Told me all I needed to know about Colbert.

Bad Lieutenant: Yeah, I suppose the right doesn't hate the new pope, rather misses the Hitlerjugend Pope who covered up the pederast Priests. The sight of the commie pope washing the feet of the poor rather than kissing the ass of the rich is an abomination to all that is holy.

Ann Althouse said...[A] person who believes he didn't think up his own ideas but had them handed to him by God is dangerous. He's impervious to reason and evidence and advice from experts and pleas for mercy and his own urges toward empathy and self-preservation.

That's tantalizingly close to a good point but ruined by being too narrow.

People who are imperious to reason and evidence are dangerous.

There, see? That's a very good--and very important--point. As someone who's presumably good friends with lots of Academic Leftists (many of whom are doing their best to actively discredit and both oppose & teach opposition to reliance on reason, evidence, etc) it's a point I'd hope you're eager to make, Professor.

"a person who believes he didn't think up his own ideas but had them handed to him by God is dangerous."

I am not sure I see why a person like this is any more dangerous than a person believes he DID think up his ideas all on his own. People who hear voices and think it's God versus people who hear voices and think it's their self-generated genius. What's the difference. From what little I've seen now of this Omarosa, she seems far more unhinged and sure of her voices (with far less reason to) than Pence ever has. A Which one would you want to have ruling over you>

I think "dangerous" is hyperbolic. As one who spent ten years preparing for and being a protestant Minister, both fundementalist and later, liberal I have met people like this. They were never "dangerous" but somewhat delusional and misguided. They equated their thoughts with God's in a kind of grandiose interpretation giving them an importance they never had. I never saw these folks even remotely dangerous. However, if your talking about the Branch Davidians, that's a whole other story. Radicals of any stripe are dangerous. But they are rare.